-DM-

Would that it were that simple, but the fact of the matter is that RO 13:1-4 says that the powers that be are ordained by "God." You cannot, therefore, make that dichotomy--unless you reject what Paul allegedly said here.

Whether out and out contradictions or not, they are definitely inconsistent, and that is what I label them, inconsistencies. Of course "God" himself breaks many of the commandments which "He" allegedly gave us, so there is nothing new about inconsistency and the "God" of the Bible.

According to the Bible, slavery is a "God"-ordained institution. Jesus said absolutely nothing to do away with it. Slaves are to obey their masters in everything [LE 25:44-46, DT 15:17, EP 6:5, CN 3:22, TS 2:9, 1PE 2:18]. Therefore, a Christian who objects to slavery has got to do so on some basis other than the Bible.

On the contrary, those are the words which the Bible says that the Gospel authors say that someone heard him say, but the fact of the matter is that we have good reason to believe that at least some of the words that Jesus is alleged to have said were, in fact, words that were attributed to him that he did not say. Still, if we allow for the moment that he did say those words . . .

To pretend to know exactly what he meant is quite presumptuous.

In my opinion, this is just so much apologetic hogwash when there is good biblical evidence to the contrary in some of the very things that Jesus is alleged to have said and done.

In my opinion, Jesus was clearly a hypocrite. Anyone who allegedly says to call no one a "fool" and does so himself is a hypocrite, in my book. And that is just one of many examples, but it only takes one example of imperfect behavior to show that he wasn't nearly so perfect as [some] Christians like to think he was.

My goodness, I hope that you will not imitate the "God" of the Bible. Are you going to order the killing of innocent children to settle a grudge that someone had against their ancestors? Are you going to authorize the taking of young virgin girls as spoils of war? Sheesh!

Never mind all the killing that "He" is responsible for. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the commandment against killing, if you are talking about one of the so-called "Ten Commandments" (which really aren't ten in number to begin with and which are given differently in different places), was really a prohibition against murder and it apparently applied only with respect to one Israelite and another, not to, for example, an Israelite and a non-Israelite.

. . . except when "God" does it or orders it, of course.

Really? You think that an unbetrothed virgin should be required to marry her seducer? You think a father should be allowed to sell his daughter into slavery to pay a debt? You think a witch or sorcerer should be put to death? You think cattle of one kind should not be allowed to breed with cattle of another kind? That adulterers should be put to death? That if a person has sex with an animal, both the person and THE ANIMAL should be put to death? A woman suspected or accused of adultery should be tested by making her drink the "water of bitterness," or holy water mixed with dust from the floor of the tent?

As the "Church Lady" would say, "How conveeeenient!"

What you offer here was first introduced (so far as we know) by Rabbi Kimchi. It has since become a typical, apologetic response attempting to make the "sacrifice" of Jepthah's daughter into something less distasteful than what it actually was, a human sacrifice. In any case, this apologetic response indicates either a deliberate attempt to whitewash the situation or a lack of careful scholarship on the part of those commentators who make this interpretation.

Judges 11:30-31 is translated as follows [emphasis mine]: 30 And Jepthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, 31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lords, and I will offer it up for a BURNT OFFERING.

According to _Strong's Concordance_ and its Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, the word used in Judges 11:31 for 'burnt' is [I hope the diacriticals come through OK] ôlâh or ôwlâh, which always means burnt, going up in smoke.

According to _Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies_ the words used at Judges 11:31 mean: a burnt-offering, a holocaust, a sacrifice to be wholly consumed; so called as being carried up and laid on the altar; usually translated, burnt-offering.

_Haley's Bible Handbook_ says: "The pitiful thing in the story of Jepthah is the sacrifice of his daughter."

(If the only sacrifice were that she remained a virgin, Haley would not find it "pitiful." Obviously, if she lived a normal life span and died a virgin, she wouldn't have needed a relatively short and special dispensation covering a relatively short period of time to bewail her virginity BEFORE she died.)

_The New Bible Dictionary_ says this [emphasis mine]: "With utter grief, Jepthah felt he must fulfill his vow by offering her as a BURNT-OFFERING ('ôlâ, which always was burned)). He did NOT devote her to a life of celibacy (a view not introduced UNTIL Rabbi Kimchi), ...."

_The New Oxford Annotated Bible_ says [emphasis mine]: "Because a Hebrew woman could suffer no grater disgrace than to DIE childless, Jepthah's daughter asks for TIME to bewail her virginity."

_Harper's Bible Dictionary_ says [emphasis mine]: "Tragedy lurked in the decisive victory won by Jepthah. He had made a vow to devote, as a BURNT OFFERING to God, whatever he first saw coming out ... of his house."

The Book of the Bible says [emphasis mine]: "Before his war with the Ammonites he had vowed that he would offer as a BURNT SACRIFICE the first person who came out of his house to greet him on his victorious return.

"Human sacrifice was exceptional among the ancient Hebrews, although we still read, 'The firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me' (Ex. 22:29, cb. 13:2). The Israelites very early SUBSTITUTED, like Abraham (Gen. 22:13), an animal sacrifice to 'redeem' the first born (Exod. 13:13-15, 34:20; Numb. 18-15). NEVERTHELESS, in a desperate crisis, the first-born was sacrificed as the supreme gift to the deity.... The immolation of Jephthah's daughter (Judg 11:30-40), which has been compared to Agamemnon's proposed sacrifice of his daughter Iphigenia (saved by Artemis), is the result of a vow made to the deity to obtain victory. Prisoners of war were occasionally sacrificed either for blood revenge (Judge 8:18-21) or as part of the ban (1Sam 15:33). Both these barbaric ancient rites were regarded as sacrifices to the deity ...."
[From "Harper's Bible Dictionary," pp 824-5]

--

There is also this:

"I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them through the lands, because they did not obey My rules, but rejected My laws, profaned My sabbaths, and looked with longing to the fetishes of their fathers. Moreover, I gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live. WHEN THEY SET ASIDE EVERY FIRST ISSUE OF THE WOMB, I defiled them by their gifts--that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am Lord."
[Ezekiel 20:25-26]

--

"Laws that were not good? Rules by which they could not live? Is this how he demonstrates 'that I am the Lord'?"

"What the Lord alludes to in the phrase the 'first issue of the womb' and 'I defiled them by their very gifts' is child sacrifice."

"The practice of burning children alive as a propitiatory sacrifice to Moloch, though condemned at Leviticus 18:21 with a specific reference to this Canaanite deity, WAS WELL-KNOWN IN ANCIENT ISRAEL. References to it in II Kings are frequent...."

"The Jerusalem Bible strains in a highly interpretive translation of Ezekiel 20:25-26... In a note it adds: 'Primitive theology ascribed customs and practices to Yahweh for which men themselves were responsible. Here Ezekiel seems to have in mind the commandment to offer the newly born [Exod. 22:28-29], often so grossly misconstrued by the Israelites.'"

"But the text does not say that Ezekiel has this in mind. IT SAYS THAT THE LORD HIMSELF HAS THIS IN MIND. Ezekiel is not characterizing the Lord, the Lord is characterizing himself...."
[From "God, a Biography" by Jack Miles, pp 331-333]

--

"Human sacrifice is one of the most repulsive, indeed barbarous, acts in which human beings can engage. It is not only a wanton case of murder, nearly always masquerading under the guise of religion and service to god, but a dehumanizing practice that can only result in the degeneration of all participants. Unfortunately, the Bible not only describes instances of human sacrifice, but relates instances in which GOD ALMIGHTY BOTH CONDONES AND PROMOTES THIS HORRIBLE ACTIVITY...." [From "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy" by C. Dennis McKinsey, pp 272-273]

"Hebrews -- This member of the Semitic family was no less prone than the rest to human sacrifices...." [From "The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p 863]

In "The History of Childhood", Lloyd De Mause writes:
"Child sacrifice was practiced... in certain periods by the Israelites. Thousands of bones of sacrificed children have been dug up by archaeologists, often with inscriptions identifying them as first-born sons of nobility".

Soooo, what it boils down to is that we have yet another example of a typical apologetic maneuver, albeit either a bit dishonest or quite amateurish--or both--on the part of some apologists (not necessarily Spurly, but rather those he relies on) to whitewash what is obviously not something that reflects well on "God."

Which doesn't change the fact that the CHILD was essentially punished for his PARENT'S neglect to fulfill the Covenant--unless he himself were willing to do what you yourself say you would not want to have to do at an age when you yourself could be capable of making and understanding your decision.

I think you need to read up on what actually took place and what I have touched on, above. The context of the times throws quite a bit of light on this.

That's about all I have time for.

In summary: A perfect, omnipotent and loving "God" could be expected to have done a better job of it had "He" anything to do with the inspiration of a book such as the Bible. That the Bible is not "His Word," not the word of a perfect and omnipotent "God," should be obvious to almost anyone, in my opinion.

-Don-

spurly

I guess he could have. But when we are looking back on slavery in ancient Israel, we need not make the mistake of thinking it was like slavery in America in the 1800's. People weren't sending boats to pick up slaves in another country and ship them to Israel.

On the contrary, when one owed a debt they could not pay, one option was to sell their services to the one they owed money to, and thus work off the debt. Is it a perfect system. No. But then again, I don't believe any system is perfect since the fall (and I realize this point of view is coming from a Christian bias).

But God also gave a tremendous freeing time. In every seventh year, the slaves were to be set free.

However, if you liked the one you were serving and wished to stay with him, you could. (This is another evidence that slavery in those days wasn't equal to what it was in the 1800's). Slaves were held in much higher esteem then.

But, I admit, they were still slaves.

Kevin

spurly

Don,

Thanks for the reply. I can see that you have studied this issue and are not just throwing verses around, and I appreciate that.

I guess one of the major problems that we have with the Word of God is that there are so many interpretations of what the Bible actually says.

Through the years people have looked at the Bible as a whole and come to different conclusions. One example that most people notice, even if they are not Christians, is that some people who follow Jesus worship on Saturday, and others on Sunday. Why? It is a matter of interpretation of what God said.

As far as human sacrifice goes, it was strictly forbidden by OT law.
The nations around Israel practiced it when they offered sacrifices to Molech and Chemosh. Israel was not to do this.

CONFESSION TIME: What I am about to say in this post comes from an admittedly Christian bias. I know that. But here goes anyway.

Because Jephthah would know that human sacrifice was detestable to God, how could he ever think he would be pleasing God by making his daughter a human sacrifice? He couldn't.

So what happened? She, like Samuel after her, was probably given to full time temple service. During that time she would never marry - and thus she went out to wail her virginity.

I know that some Christians have not interpreted this passage in this way. In my opinion the problem is that they are not interpreting the Bible as a whole - which has to be done.

The only other option, from the Christian perspective, is that what Jephthah did was very displeasing to God. He sinned by offering his daughter as a sacrifice, if that is what happened. But I don't think it did.

You also quoted Ezekiel 20:25 which you say states that God gave "bad laws" to Israel.

Again, you and I have a total disagreement on what that verse means. What was Ezekiel talking about? Would he say that God's laws were bad? I don't think so.

I think what he was referring to can be found back in the book of Deuteronomy. Over and over again God told them that if they followed his laws they would live in teh land he was giving them forever, but if they did not - then they would suffer consequences. These consequences included captivity, being over taken by other nations, etc.

Those are the bad laws, the if laws that came with consequences that were bad because the Israelites were not following them.

Again, this is an interpretation question, and I admit that I interpret it with a Christian bias. But I hope you would admit that you interpret it with an atheist bias.

Kevin

-DM-

Whether they used boats or not is irrelevant, of course, given that the Israelites DID take slaves--forcibly--from the people around them (if we are to believe the Old Testament stories, although we know that some of them are hogwash).

Only in some cases was this true. This was true, for example, in the case of a MALE sold into slavery to pay a debt [EX 21:2]. This was not true of a female slave. If, for example, a father sold his DAUGHTER into slavery, she would NOT be set free at the end of seven years [EX 21:7-11]; in fact, female slaves often became concubines of their master [p. 374, "What Does the Bible Say About . . . ," Thomas Nelson pub.].

Spurly: In presenting your apologetics, I suppose that you think that you are doing "a good thing" for "God," but it seems to me that "He" would expect you to be a little bit more forthright when it comes to the truth of the matter. It is certainly something less than completely forthright to simply make a blanket statement about slaves being set free at the end of seven years when such is not necessarily the case.

Where is your evidence for this? LE 25:39 and DT 15:14 tend to provide evidence to the contrary given that those verses talk about not treating an ISRAELITE slave harshly, thus implying that this was not a concern, or not as much of a concern, in the case of non-Israelite slaves. In addition, there are several other verses which tend to indicate that what you are saying here is "spin-doctoring" the situation. Here are two examples:

EX 21:20 When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.

1PE 2:18-21 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps.

-Don-

-DM-

It is begging the question to equate the Bible with the "Word of God."

Given that "God" is allegedly perfect and omnipotent, and given that the so-called Holy Spirit is allegedly part of the Godhead, and given that the Holy Spirit is allegedly a teacher, and given that these differing interpretations even involve devout Christians--many of them scholars and/or experts--one could reasonably expect that, if the Bible were the "Word of God," there wouldn't be these "many interpretations."

"Human sacrifice was exceptional among the ancient Hebrews, although we still read, 'The firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me' (Ex. 22:29, cb. 13:2). The Israelites very early SUBSTITUTED, like Abraham (Gen. 22:13), an animal sacrifice to 'redeem' the first born (Exod. 13:13-15, 34:20; Numb. 18-15). NEVERTHELESS, in a desperate crisis, the first-born was sacrificed as the supreme gift to the deity.... The immolation of Jephthah's daughter (Judg 11:30-40), which has been compared to Agamemnon's proposed sacrifice of his daughter Iphigenia (saved by Artemis), is the result of a vow made to the deity to obtain victory. Prisoners of war were occasionally sacrificed either for blood revenge (Judge 8:18-21) or as part of the ban (1Sam 15:33). Both these barbaric ancient rites were regarded as sacrifices to the deity ...." ["Harper's Bible Dictionary," pp 824-5]

Unless you were omniscient, you could not possibly know with certainty what Jephthah did and did not know, what he could or could not think. It appears to me that you are spin-doctoring when, in fact, you are simply wrong according to experts whom I trust and whom you should trust.

It is exactly when we do interpret the Bible as a whole that the problems become quite obvious. After all, the biblical authors likely had no idea that what they wrote would one day be compiled into a "Bible," thus making the inconsistencies in their stories more readily apparent.

There are several options:
1) It didn't happen.
2) It happened and it was pleasing to "God."
3) It happened and it wasn't pleasing to "God."
4) It happened and "God" was neither pleased nor displeased.
5) There is no "God" so the matter of "God's" pleasure is irrelevant.

Here is the literal translation straight from Strong's:
EZ 20:25 Wherefore I gave [H5414] them also [H1571] statutes [H2706] that were not good [H2896], and judgments [H4941] whereby they should not live [H2421]. And I polluted [H2930] them in their own gifts [H4979], in that they caused to pass [H5674] through the fire all [H3605] that openeth [H6363] the womb [H7356], that I might make them desolate [H8074], to the end [H4616] that they might know [H3045] that I am the LORD [H3068].

Look up the Hebrew words referenced and the meaning is quite clear. And keep in mind that this is allegedly "God" himself talking, not Ezekiel.

Think what you must, but to me it seems that you are just spin-doctoring what should be obvious even to you.

It is not possible to investigate an issue and come to a conclusion about that issue without having at least some bias. So yes, I now approach much of this from a nontheistic point of view.

The fact of the matter is, however, that I was once a born-again, Bible-believing, evangelical Christian myself. I was personally discipled by my pastor. I was on the Board of Elders and Chairman of the Christian Education Committee of a satellite church associated with a very well-known Bible church. It is not as if I don't have a good perspective on both sides of these issues.

It was exactly because of my incessant Bible-reading, Bible-study attendance, etc., that I began to notice problems in both the Bible and Christian theology which eventually led to a great deal of study--and my rejection of Christianity as false, and not worthy of my time and effort. To continue to believe I would have had to completely subvert my intellect; I would have had to somehow convince myself that the kind of spin-doctoring that you do somehow gets "God" and the Bible off the hook insofar as otherwise insurmountable problems are concerned.

I tried, but it didn't work.

At one time, I had a library of about 450 books on the subject of Christianity; I read hundreds of those books (some were reference books not meant to be read), some on both sides of the fence. My feeling is that no one who did the studying that I have done could possibly continue to believe in the existence of the Bible "God" or that the Bible is in any way the "Word" of a perfect, omnipotent, and loving "God."

My feeling is that anyone, including you, who did the in-depth study of the Bible and the foundation of Christian belief that I have done could not possibly continue to believe without completely subverting his/her intellect.

-Don-

P.S. While I enjoy these discussions, I really cannot afford the time. If you feel that your apologetics would be pleasing to your "God," then you will likely be able to continue without interference from me. My feeling is that a perfect and omnipotent "God" wouldn't need the services of an army of apologists to explain what "He" is all about or to interpret for us a book which "He" had inspired. I also feel that, if needed or not, Christian scholars--all of whom are allegedly guided by the Holy Spirit--could rightly be expected to agree on interpretation far more often than they do.

Vicar Philip

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

gulfwar_veteran

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

GWV

lpetrich

I wonder what they tend to believe about ghosts; I wonder what they think about the notion of haunted houses.

Starboy

spurly, thanks again. I hope you do not mind my asking direct questions regarding your views on this subject.

How do you feel about lobbying for laws that cause everyone to conform to Christian teachings, such as the anti-abortion movement. Do you feel that it is enough that Christians can choose to not abort, or do you think that everyone should be denied the right to an abortion?

What do you think about displaying the word "God" on government buildings, currency and in the pledge? How about teaching religion in public schools? Are you for a secular society?

Starboy

spurly

Here's my idea of how Christians should influence society. (It is late so please excuse me if I seem to be rambling).

If a Christian is convinced that something is a principle of God for everyone - "Do not kill", you bet they should lobby for it. This should include anti-capital punishment lobbying, anti-abortion lobbying, etc. But more important than that, they should live by what they believe.

The best way to influence the society is to live as lights and influence thorugh example.

It doesn't seem that our forefathers had any problem placing the name of God on buildings or even using government money to print Bibles, so that must not be what they meant by separation of church and state.

But I'm not so sure I am for prayer or teaching religion in public schools because I would not want to indoctrinate a child in Hinduism, for example, against the wishes of their parent. Religion should be left to the home and to religous institutions. If one wants the school to teach their child about God, they should send them to a private Christian school.

Maybe I can give a better response to this after I get some sleep.

Good night all.

Kevin